Re: If you're a scientist, you better be a PRO global warming theorist


Rich wrote:
An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to
paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the
details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were
likely
the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium.
Mr.
Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out
Mr.
Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And
they
did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made
difficult
because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details
for
analysis.

Interesting comments about Joe Barton. Indeed Joe Barton did send a
letter to the authors of the IPCC report including Micheal Mann. What
no one in the scientific community could understand is why was Barton
was asking for the details behind the analysis. Barton already had
every last shred of data and detail any one could want, except for
possibly the terabytes of climate model runs, in the IPCC analysis he
already had on his desk. Could it be that the oil industry which
"contributes" to Barton's re-election campaign and PAC stand to loose
the huge profits they have made in the last few years if conservation
measures were put in place to reduce emissions? Naw, they only have
the consumer at heart! Besides those nasty old scientists making
$80,000 a year are the ones who are really making all the money! Just
as a passing note: Since 1997, oil, gas, electricity, nuclear, coal and
chemical companies have contributed $1.84 million to Barton, more than
to any other House member.

.